<p>Tougher flagship state schools often curve some of their classes to C/C+. Emory’s graduating GPA is like a 3.38-3.4 (this puts us .1 above most top flagships with similar talent-pools) with almost 1/2 of the students earning over 3.5. I’d imagine there are an abnormal amount of 3.9s or 3.85s and higher here or at many of these top privates than there are at top flagship universities or even normal state schools. While the state schools generally have a “less talented” student body, they clearly challenge that student body enough to make sure a 4.0 is not that common (I think there were plenty of 4.0s in my graduating class and a bunch of 3.9s. A couple were indeed extraordinary students in the sciences, but sometimes on just knew that it meant a little less in cases where the student often took easy curving/grading courses). Private schools do it to an extent, but also want to make sure we graduate and are happy. Only some schools go far enough to even challenge the notion that high GPAs for everyone should= happiness. These are, as far as I know, Princeton, Reed, Harvey Mudd, MIT, and Johns Hopkins. Emory is in the WashU, Northwestern, Chicago, Vandy suite of grade inflation (kind of the middle as many schools have exceeded 3.4 and in the case of Stanford, Yale, and Brown, 3.5). A lot of it comes from the grading practices in the social sciences and humanities, but also from some weird stuff in certain upper level science courses (let’s just say, that we don’t get better grades in them because they are more challenging and we are just more prepared, but because some are just plain easier, or grade easier. I am okay with the latter moreso than the former. This is how a place like Harvard or Yale is still significantly more rigorous while also inflating the grades. They can actually argue that the curve was well-deserved. We can’t always argue that, yet people here automatically expected when the average isn’t a solid B)</p>
<p>As for the grading curve/distribution in pre-med courses. I would say that only chemistry courses are left with a B- average (actually this is the first year in a while, that gen. chem is probably a B- instead of B/B+). And that is expected (some organic chemistry classes even curve slightly lower than B-, like Gallivan’s and some of the other researchers, but Gallivan’s curve is generous considering his averages on those difficult exams he gives for 222). Grades in general biology have gone way up (in the interest of “fairness”, many professors will water down their own testing style from previous years so that students won’t complain that they are too hard compared to others. If the biol profs. give one hard test at like 75-80, then they must give an easier one to make up for it at 80-85. I think most have been pressured to become easier, like Spell, and some, like Passalaucqua are becoming pressured to become slightly harder. Some were just kicked out of there altogether, like Eisen, who is probably considered too tough, even after curving. I feel like biol 141 has lost a gem), they are probably a B/B+ at this point (When I took it, there was more a mixture of B-s, Bs, and B+, etc. among the sections, except in 141, where it was a B- for about every section). Only huge classes like Biochem, NBB 301, and Cell Biol drag the biol dept. grade distribution down. Also, I get the feeling that physics is a B when there are other non-Bing professors. It will go back down to B- once Bing teaches all of the sections. </p>
<p>But yeah, pre-meds students at Emory should ask themselves, do they want to compete amongst each other, or with a national applicant pool? And the best way to do the latter is to push yourself to see what you can do. Assess your own strengths and limitations, take a risk every now-and-then, don’t let others (including phmo) tell you that you cannot or should not do it if you have been shown to be a strong student. They really need to personalize their advice and stop treating everyone as if they are the same.</p>